[ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out of scope.

[Hector Santos]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> NOMAIL is out of scope, wildcards for signature policy are not.

Deja-vu.  NOMAIL is not out of scope in SSP and you need to STOP saying 
it.   The CONFUSING VOTE that was taking - I still don't now show what 
it meant but it was not what it would to be removed from SSP!

> There are two deployment stories we need to be able to give, 
 > one that meets 95% of needs with legacy infrastructure support,
 > the second that meets 100% of needs with a minor incremental
 > change to the legacy infrastructure.

I don't see how SSP violates this principle.

> The second of these provides a slot ready made 
 > for NOMAIL, (and for STARTTLE, PGP and SMIME if you like).

Oy vey! So then it is not out of scope as you said.

> I am meeting your set of requirements in full. I am just 
 > not doing so in such a way that my proposal is out of scope,
 > that is all.

Well, I would like to know who proposed this lame rule that it should be 
out of scope when it wasn't and was clearly part of all the sepcs - SSP 
and DSAP specs.

If people voted under the disquise of a general "NO MAIL" concept across 
the board, well, it is clear now this is not what they voted for because 
you are making provisions for it.

I don't understand why is so secret. I don't want a NO-MAIL DKIM policy 
to be dependent on a KLUDGED MX concept or  LMAP support.


-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com